Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 25, 2010 6:30am-7:00am PST

7:30 am
we're happy to see the chamber being warm to this and newsom who was a supporter of this idea too. we're bringing people who had not been not ness -- not ness cecily of the same wave length earlier, this has been a real coming together, these are the options and this is the best approach. it has been delightful to see in action. >> thank you very much. >> i like to thank jeremy and our fabulous intern jenny, if you have more questions, please feel free to ask them. >> thank you. >> all right. one more thing to speak of. i believe your legislative subcommittee discussed this. i like to offer our responses to -- i know there's a question about the definition of recyclable paper bag. we're looking what the the city attorney and possible amendments
7:31 am
to that and define what would be an allowed paper bag, there's a large size of paper bags -- the -- the grocery sized bags that are 12, 14 inches tall with handle. so as not to a allow the smaller paper bags for a handful of items would still be allowed. there's a question about -- about the -- about the definition of highly visible manner where -- where, which says that -- in the bag ee, that for compostable plastic bags, they would have to -- say that in -- in the highly visible manner they're compostable and reusable. there was a question about whether this would cause problems with this -- with bags and what the bags -- the bag suppliers and being able to find a bag that met this. this is the same definition we have in the current plastic bag ban. we heard no reports of any problems with it. it seems all of the existing retailers are complying with
7:32 am
that. you -- if you hear from merchants that are having problems finding compliant bags we would be glad to look at that. as far as we could tell, it is something the bag industry has adopted with. and that's -- i believe there was a question about -- about the definition of the specialty retail merchandise bags. that's what they're working with the city attorney on to come up with the specifics of how to define the bags without creating loopholes for some of the fake plastic bags that we have seen in the past. i believe those are the questions. then -- i think also there's a question about how the defeat of the state level bill a.b. 1998 impacts this. i think basically with sacramento failing to act, mirkarimi says, it put the onus on local governments to take the lead. we're working with the advocates around this bag. and the bag issue to take a look at all of the other locality
7:33 am
that is are working on this. we're trying to come up with consistent guidelines across the different locations, so that -- you know, merchants and bag manufactures and growsers will have as much as we can a unified set of rules but present a unified front, once you get past the plastics lobby and you're ready to act on this, this is how you could do it in a clean and effective way. >> you come back to us with all of the definitions or when is your next step? >> yeah, we're still -- we're working with the -- with the city attorney on these final weeks to it. and we would be glad to bring those to you as soon as they're ready. >> thank you. all right. thanks. >> should we open the floor to public comment? >> any public comment? okay. >> jenny.
7:34 am
i wanted to address -- address commissioner castleman's question about the five cent, whether it was a floor or -- it had to be five. jeremy and i have -- discussed -- discussed making that more clear in the ordinance, that that is just a nor that retailers are welcome to charge more. i wanted to tell you. >> thank you. >> anymore public comments? >> seeing none, public comment closed. >> i don't see changes at all. i think the supervisor's office has done a really good job. >> agree. >> they have integrated the concerns of the small business community well. i think we should just accept it and -- and maybe recommend that they bring changes to the budget and policy, if you want to take a quick look. but otherwise --
7:35 am
>> director you have any comment about that? >> suggestion. >> well i know -- it sounds like -- if you're comfortable with the direction that the supervisor's office is taking with the definition of the paper bag and the specialty bag, and you don't really feel that -- that -- i mean, as a matter of protocol and for satisfaction of making sure to know what that is, to bring it back to the policy committee, then you could do -- just do -- if you're interested in -- in approving this without any recommendations play do -- may do so or you could say approval upon the legislation and policy committee's final recommendation of the two definitions. >> i'm just proposing -- just -- >> i feel pretty comfortable with going and recommending it. i think the things we're talking about -- the things we're
7:36 am
talking about is relatively minor. i feel comfortable moving ahead of this. >> commissioner o'brien. >> just one question for -- for mr. pollack. have there been any -- >> besidesed petro chemical industries which -- which kind of obvious where they're going to come down on this. from local growsers and people like that, has there been any -- negative reaction on their part at all? i would imagine probably not but i wanted to know. >> not that we've heard. there was concern about the definition of the paper bag of -- of like i was just describing to define it as the larger full-sized grocery bags and not the smaller hand-held paper bags, but from everything we have heard the people seem to be on board and the -- there's no real organized complaints or any real specific objections other than what we heard from the petro chemical lobbies. >> thank you. >> yeah.
7:37 am
>> i would agree. maybe no harm for the legislation policy, subcommittee to just -- to just proof read one more time. i think we're all on board that this is -- a goal we could get lind, the responsible government i think. >> do we need a motion? >> you need to do each piece of legislation again. even though you heard both items together, you do need to make a motion on each -- on each piece of legislation. okay. let's have a motion for item number nine. >> i second. >> i like to make a motion to approve it as it has been submitted to us. >> on item number nine? okay. >> second. >> all right. >> in favor? >> aye.
7:38 am
>> all right. item number 10? do i have a motion? i'll make a motion to -- >> to -- >> to support this. >> or? >> support as is with a -- with a hearing by the legislation committee, right? >> for the definition. >> for the definitions. >> okay. i think we could support it as is. >> yeah. okay. >> okay. >> item number 10. >> we have a bhgs to support as is. do i have a second. >> second. >> okay, those in favor. >> aye. >> all right. next item please. thank you so much. commissioners, we'll hear item number 12k and item 13 together. item 12, discussion and possible action to make recommendations
7:39 am
to the board of supervisors on -- board of supervisors file 101106 interim zoning controls for the avenue special use district. this is a resolution imposing interim zoning controls to require al use authorization for other entertainment uses within the avenue special use district. item number 13. discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on the file 101091. planning code requiring al use 1 101091. planning code requiring al use authorization for other entertainment uses and the special use district, commissioners item 12 would be an interim resolution that would take effect up to 18 months. item 13 would be permanent controls. >> commissioners, we do not have a -- supervisor pier's office, did you want to give a brief
7:40 am
overview? >> well, yes, i'll give a brief overview and then actually -- chris, i might have you fill in since you had the primary conversations with the supervisor on this. in your packet, make sure on the -- in the sleeve cover is a definition of -- of other entertainment, just so that you northbound what that is -- what the -- the -- the commissioner dooley, do you not have that? so, as -- as it was read to you, the resolution is interim for 18 months. and -- right now there isn't -- there isn't conditional use for -- for -- for other -- entertainment for moving in -- in a businessee a business moving in on van ness avenue. as described in the legislation,
7:41 am
which starts, the van ness avenue special use district starts at van ness avenue on the -- on the -- on van ness avenue, starts at broadway on the north end and ends at golden gate on the south end. so -- right now there's no conditional use for other entertainment. this legislation would be proposing that any business that is defined as other entertainment is -- would have to go through conditional use to -- to -- to open up their business. is there any other information that you have to add? >> commissions, all i'll add in speaking with bill barnes from pier's office, the main concern they have in proposing the ordinance and this resolution is restaurants that may turn into -- into places of entertainment and lounges, nightclubs, and they felt that since conditional use does not prohibit a use, it
7:42 am
just requires an additional level of oversight by the planning commission, they felt this was an appropriate step to make to insure -- to insure that the proper oversight takes place. the -- they noted to me that that nearby streets and neighborhoods such as union street and chestnut, poor corridor and other commercial districts, those all require conditional use for this type of use. >> so currently, is it not allowed? >> currently it is -- it is prohibited -- it is -- it is allowed by right. the only type of permit that is a business would need would be to go to the entertainment commission. >> thank you. commissioner o'brien, do you have a question? >> it is from before. >> okay. >> i would like to add, it is interesting that we're talking about a street that has vacancies.
7:43 am
i don't see why this is problematic. >> okay. commissioner clyde? commissioner clyde: my only comment is -- is that i would like to see -- i would like to see us move forward on some exemption for -- for some kinds of entertainment. -- you though, i believe that we should be crafting a teixeira hold and -- a -- above which threshold, a conditional use is required and under the threshold -- it is not required. entertainment is allowed. we just draw rules that prescribe creativity, that people -- people put in creative interesting business plans and then all of a sudden, someone objects out there and it is just -- very difficult. i mean, that being said, i agree, i don't see much wrong
7:44 am
with it but i would -- would still like to see concurrent movement on -- >> such as a cafe that wanted to do music. then they got to go to the planning commission in order to -- to make it happen. >> they got the girl with the guitar singing for 2 1/2 hours -- >> why a girl? >> i'm just making -- i'm just trying to appeal to our male dominated board of supervisors, i guess. i don't know. >> but -- you recommending there is a threshold? >> i'm saying that it is -- when i look at proposals like this -- in increasing the -- increasing the area plan of c.u., one of the most dine nick neighborhoods in the city is the mission district. it is because it is kind of just kind of growing. people -- you know are allowing these things to -- all of these
7:45 am
alternative things to happen there without any interference at all from government. >> do we need conditional use for the mission area? >> i like to take a look at where that is at. i get my -- guess my greater concern, neighborhoods that have large vacancies and are under, under developed, they -- they don't have the foot traffic and what is going on. you see, you see, a need for -- for i think relaxing of restrictions, not increasing them. that's all i'm going to say. >> what if this was tied to some type of square footage threshold, similar to what we -- what -- commissioner o'brien was proposing earlier on, where 2500 square feet and below doesn't require al use. >> perhaps that's something that we could take to the supervisor's office. and see -- see if she would be interested in that or if that would satisfy the -- the irment ares. >> i don't think that's allowed
7:46 am
>> as is in the planning code. there's for size things for other entertainment. it would have to be changed in the code but i think that -- clearly, we need to -- to revisit and -- >> how about capacity? >> what we need, i think more in terms of -- of i think there should be different levels of entertainment use. i think a lot of this is if play because we have seen some abuse but that doesn't mean everyone is going to abuse it. i think that if we allow a -- a -- another section that is not so prod, i think that we -- we would do much better, i think that we should be able to have -- to have you know the single mic or -- you know, the -- small amount of amplified sound. i think once again, this is a part of the planning code that we really need to look at. you know, there are many other things in the planning code that
7:47 am
effects small businesses that -- we need to meet and discuss and i know the planning commission has asked for a joint meeting with us. perhaps we should -- we should have a meeting with the planning department also. because i think we could solve a lot of these problems by updating some of these -- these pieces in the planning department. so you're right. someone that wants a single mic to sipping opera is not the same as a nightclub. we need to make the changes. i know in our district, people go from one thing to the next. they want a restaurant then karaoke and it keeps bouncing forward. then the pool table and before you know t the restaurant is now a bar and lounge. lounge. and i think that we deem -- we do need to look at that.
7:48 am
but i think we should have a separate category for the small entertainment uses. >> director? >> well, i was just going to -- to suggest that -- that in -- while i understand what you're saying, commissioner dooley, i think there are some definitions in the planning code that do -- do either talk about square feet or -- what have you in terms of certain -- i do recall seeing that. >> there may be the opportunity instead of defining -- i mean saying when a business is -- is x number of square feet over -- over than the planning, than the -- it kicks into -- the conditional -- the conditional use. it >> it could be in a place that is larger that wants a small thing. i don't think the size has to
7:49 am
necessarily predicate it. >> most of those -- most of those are huge. >> right. >> right. that's why i was just -- i suggesting that -- there be criteria again -- again delved for planning and probably and the entertainment commission as well to -- to exempt a certain class of -- or just you know, again this criteria that helps -- helps us realize the kind of entertainment we would like to say and assist businesses. and help them improve their business plans and enrich them as opposed to degrade. >> i think it is about how much of an intensification of the use, we're looking at. i think that that is really the trigger. >> uh-huh. maybe this is an opportunity to take a look at those roles and draw them in such a way that -- that you know, to draw them.
7:50 am
now, or not. maybe it is not. >> commissioners, if i point out, we do have two. we have an interim resolution that will likely be before the board of supervisors in the next one month and then the long term controls, item in your opinion 13, that's about something that is two or three months out. the commission play want to consider supporting, if you're so inclined supporting a resolution and then -- and then if appropriate revisit it later on. >> may i just say that, i think that the commission may want to -- to give -- give an indication of the direction that they're going to -- of the considerations that -- that are of concern. towards the resolution. then continue to -- to -- to to give more specificity to the definition towards the -- toward
7:51 am
the item 13. may i make an alternate proposal. should we send this? it has not been heard at legislation and policy, has it? it has not had a thorough vetting there. >> also, we're going to -- aren't we going to be speaking at the next policy with someone from planning department? could we move it there? do you want to table it? >> could we do that and then -- then -- then let -- let the policy make a recommendation atta time. >> realistically it is going to take longer to change this in the code than for this. to happen. >> i -- so, i mean there's the resolution and the resolution, if it does pass before the board of supervisors -- will -- will -- that does mean for the 18 months it'll. be implemented as conditional use which that will -- have
7:52 am
already -- anyway it'll be implemented as conditional use for the 18 months. >> am i making sense? >> yes, you are. it reinforces my thought that it should go back. i'm president -- oom not saying. we'll spend it back to the legislation and polls committee just this terms of timingwise -- the legislation and policy committee could send a recommendation to the board of supervisors, but timingwise it may not be able to -- timingwise, if the resolution is heard at legend policy committee, that -- it may not have time to come back before the full commission for the commission to weigh in on the resolution before the board of supervisors hears it. >> that's all. >> what do we want to do? >> well -- commissioner o'connor, you're familiar with this business. do you have any recommendation, comments?
7:53 am
concerns? >> not specifically. i'm more concerned with the fact that vap ness avenue has so many vacancies on it. entertainment -- and restaurants are -- are definitely one way of revitalizing an area. it happened in mission. and the problem is, you are going to occasionally have questionable operators, and i don't think this is a really -- really -- really -- good way to approach it, is throw the baby out with the bathwater. on the other hand, it is not throwing the baby out, it is making you go through an extra hoop. that's part of doing business in san francisco. that's why i'm not really -- really that opposed to it. i just thought -- >> you blentioned earlier that -- as is currently happening in the mission & when you went to -- >> it is. you have quite, there's no -- there's no real, there's not bigger entertainment space in the mission. everything happening on a small level which is proving to be
7:54 am
successful and it makes it interesting for the customers because they get to go around. see different things, that's one of the problems that actually -- it is actually legislation that i try to propose with the commission a couple of years ago is how we can take really bigger spaces and make them smaller or at least when developers come along and they propose plans at the beginning, how as a city we could ask them to -- to make their spaces -- kind of what i was calling gradeation of spaces -- spaces, instead of one large footprint which only a bigger box retail store could rent. you work with the developer to give them one larger space and then a couple of smaller spaces and then what you have on van ness is a bunch of big spaces and a lot of them are empty. >> i am speaking to someone from planning actually, but context of the formula -- formula retail. and -- specifically we have have
7:55 am
discussed van ness. >> right. >> we're going to be working on that idea because you know, i feel -- i feel really strongly that -- when we get into these battles over more -- more change wanting to come in, there's got to be a way to rent the big spaces out and not just to a have to always rent to a chain. so, she was -- she wasn't telling me that there actually are on the books for most of our neighborhoods that you could do a division say of a light manufacturing -- this is a little different than entertainment but a light manufacturing, bread or cheese and then have a retail store and so, i really do want to pursue this idea of making it easier to kind of break up in a sense these bigger spots. so that -- you know, we don't have to rent. >> also talk to the person that works on the idea of this happening before the buildings get built because we saw when height limits were lift lifted
7:56 am
on van ness and we saw a lot of construction onvan ness in the 1990's and 2000s which was great but they were creating large footprints and now we're stuck with them and they can't rin rent them. >> that's a subject that we -- we really do need to meet with the planning commission and the planning department. >> i know we have to wrap this up. but the reality is and this is something i'm constantly harping is small businesses drive economic development. not the plair's office of economic development, not -- not various governmental agencies, not -- not new laws and regulations, small business people moving into an area taking a chance, taking a risk and turning it around -- that is what is going to get it, make it happen in the spaces -- they're too big. same thing has to be said about market street. if they want to see market street turn around, small business is going to be the catalyst. >> i was going to ask you when i mentioned -- i mentioned the
7:57 am
conditional use for the mission area, and what kind of threshold are you -- you use now? >> would that be? >> there is none. there's no actual mission district guidelines. it is really just -- >> it is really a by product of the fact there isn't bigger spaces. also, it is a by-product of the fact that the city regulated the mission by banning new liquor licenses being moved into the area. so the only -- the only things that shawl business owners and shop owners can do is work with buying an existing bar and working with the footprint of the old bar. >> they could do a premise to premise transfer within the mission district. >> that's very -- that doesn't happen often. >> not anymore. >> so commissioner what you would propose is not in existence right now? >> right. what i'm proposing is that -- we should have something concurrent with this type of concurrent
7:58 am
with this type of legislation, i believe. when i see the other, i agree with commissioner yoke -- owe connor, it is another layer of bureaucracy, which we are very used to. but at the same time i am interested in removing some of those layers of bureaucracy. what happens is because businesses operate basically under the radar, when they hit the radar, all of a sudden viable thriving businesses are closed or are forced out of business. things happen, and i would like to see us address the need for other entertainment. so are we in favor of the conditional used or not? >> the thing we are talking about is we are looking at it right now as it exists in the planning code. but we are proposing, i would think, a number of us on the
7:59 am
commission, that we want to take a serious look at this part of the code as it affects small businesses and propose some changes that would be city-wide. >> so what would be our motion for this item? >> i think we should go ahead -- i would support number 12, and we can see how it goes. we don't have to move on 13. >> ok. we did open the -- >> we need to open it for public comments first. >> any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners, may i just make one suggestion? >> sure. >> that you do want to move to approve the resslation, but you may want to give an